9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (10) TMI 643 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of Section 2 of the Orissa Administrative Service Class - II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Amendment Act 1992 Whether the Resolution of 1973 serves to render the very provision contained in Rule 4 of the 1959 Rules cited above as redundant and a nullity such that appointment to the O.A.S. II could only be by direct recruitment to the exclusion of all other sources?
Issues Involved
1. Validity of Section 2 of the Orissa Administrative Service, Class-II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Amendment Act, 1992. 2. Concept and application of the "year of allotment." 3. Seniority determination between direct recruits and merger recruits. 4. The impact of the 1973 Merger Resolution on recruitment and seniority rules. 5. Legislative competence and discrimination claims. Detailed Analysis Validity of Section 2 of the Orissa Administrative Service, Class-II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Amendment Act, 1992 The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 2 of the Amendment Act, arguing that it was discriminatory and should not apply retrospectively. The court upheld the validity of the Act, stating that the legislature has the jurisdiction to pass laws that balance the interests of its employees. The court noted, "A valid piece of legislation, thus, can be struck down only if it is found to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not otherwise." Concept and Application of the "Year of Allotment" The principle of the "year of allotment" was central to the dispute. The court reiterated that this principle has long been a settled practice in Orissa, where the date of appointment for promotion and seniority purposes is regarded as the year the vacancy was proposed to be filled, not the actual appointment date. The court stated, "The concept of year of allotment is provided for by the Explanation contained in Rule 4(2) of the Orissa Administrative Service Class II (Appointment by Promotion, Transfer and Selection) Regulations, 1959." Seniority Determination Between Direct Recruits and Merger Recruits The petitioners, being mergerists, argued for seniority over direct recruits based on their earlier integration into the service. However, the court upheld the established practice that direct recruits for the year 1973, appointed in 1975, should be given seniority based on the "year of allotment." The court noted, "The recruits to O.A.S. Class II with 1972 as the year of allotment were senior to the mergerists. Once the concept and application of 'year of allotment' is upheld, necessarily the O.A.S. Class II direct recruits of 1973 would in the facts and circumstances be senior to the mergerists." Impact of the 1973 Merger Resolution on Recruitment and Seniority Rules The petitioners contended that the 1973 Merger Resolution rendered the principle of "year of allotment" unworkable. The court disagreed, stating that the merger did not repeal the 1959 Recruitment Rules, which provided for multiple sources of recruitment. The court observed, "The legal effect, then, of the 1973 Resolution resulting in merger was only that sub-clause (b) of Rule 4 of the 1959 Recruitment Rules ceased to have any application, and could then be regarded as impliedly repealed." Legislative Competence and Discrimination Claims The court addressed the petitioners' claim that the Amendment Act was discriminatory. It held that the legislature has the authority to enact laws that may retrospectively affect seniority, as long as they are not ultra vires the Constitution. The court stated, "Seniority is not the fundamental right but is merely a civil right. The right of the seniority in this case was also not a vested or accrued right." Conclusion The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Orissa Administrative Service, Class-II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Amendment Act, 1992, particularly Section 2. The court dismissed the writ petition and appeal, maintaining the established principle of the "year of allotment" and the resultant seniority of the 1973 direct recruits over the mergerists. The judgment emphasized the legislature's competence to enact laws affecting seniority and dismissed claims of discrimination.
|
